Luis Padilla v . Christopher Wilson, et al.
Case No: 18CV01482
Hearing Date: Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:30

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Deem Requests for Admissions; Motion Compel Compliance of Deposition Subpoena/Production of Medical Records; Compel Deposition/Sanctions; Motion Summary Judgment

Motion for Summary Judgment; Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Attend Deposition; Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena for Production of Medical Records; Motion for Order That Defendants’ Requests for Admissions Be Deemed Admitted

ATTORNEYS:

Luis Alberto Padilla, Plaintiff In Pro Per

Christopher Wilson, Defendant In Pro Per

Nicole E. Hornick for Defendants Envision Healthcare Corporation and AMR, Inc.

RULING: The motion for summary judgment of defendants AMR and Envision Healthcare is granted. Judgment is ordered entered in favor of AMR and Envision Healthcare and against plaintiff, together with costs. Defendants’ three other motions are moot given the ruling on their summary judgment motion.

BACKGROUND:

On June 13, 2017, plaintiff Luis Alberto Padilla fell and suffered a fractured ankle while engaged in drunken rough housing with defendant Christopher Wilson (“Wilson”). 911 was called and defendant American Medical Response, Inc. (“AMR”) responded to the call. AMR is owned by defendant Envision Healthcare Corporation (“Envision Healthcare”). When AMR responders Edward Mulder (“Mulder”) and Richard Varela (“Varela”) arrived at the scene, they spoke with plaintiff and several of his friends. Plaintiff was in an upstairs bedroom sitting on a bed. Plaintiff was alert and responsive and said that he had hurt his ankle downstairs and had then walked upstairs. Mulder and Varela inspected plaintiff’s ankle and found no obvious fracture or dislocation. Plaintiff asked whether his ankle was broken and Mulder told him that he could not tell and that the only way to determine that was by an x-ray. Mulder told Padilla that he could either have AMR transport him to the hospital by ambulance or have one of his friends drive him. Plaintiff declined to be transported by AMR.

Plaintiff waited three months to be seen by a medical doctor and was advised at that time that his ankle was broken and that he would need to have surgery. Eight months later, plaintiff underwent ankle surgery.

On March 23, 2018, plaintiff filed his complaint against Wilson, AMR, and Envision Healthcare. The complaint alleges two causes of action, the first for general negligence against Wilson and AMR, and the second for professional malpractice against AMR and Envision Healthcare. Plaintiff alleges that AMR and Envision Healthcare were negligent in failing to properly diagnose the severity of his ankle injury and in failing to transport him to the hospital. Plaintiff contends that AMR and Envision Healthcare’s acts and/or omissions caused him to suffer substantially greater injury and permanent damage to his ankle. AMR and Envision Healthcare deny the allegations.

AMR and Envision Healthcare have filed four motions in this matter. The first is a motion for summary judgment. The second is a motion to compel plaintiff to attend his deposition. The third is a motion to compel Ann Vance, MFT, one of plaintiff’s treating therapists, to comply with a deposition subpoena for production of business records. The fourth is a motion for order that requests for admissions be deemed admitted. There is no filed opposition to any of the motions.

ANALYSIS:

1. Motion for Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is properly granted if all the papers submitted in support of the motion show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Code Civ. Proc. §437c, subd. (c). Where the party seeking summary judgment is a defendant, it has met its burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if it has shown that the plaintiff cannot establish one or more elements of its claim or there is a complete defense to the action. Code Civ. Proc. §437c, subds. (o)(1) and (2). If the defendant meets this burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to make a prima facie showing that a triable issue of material fact exists. Code Civ. Proc. §437c, subd. (p)(2). In making this showing, the plaintiff cannot rely on the mere allegations or denials of its pleadings, but instead, must set forth specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists. Certain Underwriters of Lloyds of London v. Superior Court (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 952, 956.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges causes of action for general negligence and professional malpractice against AMR and Envision Healthcare. To prevail on a cause of action for general negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty to use due care, that the defendant breached the duty, and that the breach was the proximate cause of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff. Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 673. In a professional malpractice action, the plaintiff must prove (1) that the defendant breached the standard of care, (2) that the plaintiff was harmed, and (3) that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm. Flowers v. Torrance Memorial Hospital Medical Center (1994) 8 Cal.4th 992, 997-998. A medical professional breaches the standard of care if he or she fails to use the level of skill, knowledge, and care that other reasonably careful medical professionals would use in the same or similar circumstances. Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 408.

AMR and Envision Healthcare assert that there are no facts to support plaintiff’s contention that defendants acted unreasonably or negligently when they rendered emergency service to him, entitling them to summary judgment. The 911 call indicated that plaintiff had sustained an ankle injury. (Hornick Dec., ¶6, Ex. D, American Medical Response Incident Report.) Mulder was the AMR employee who responded to the scene and rendered assistance to plaintiff. (Mulder Dec., ¶2.) Mulder found plaintiff in an upstairs bedroom sitting on a bed. (Mulder Dec., ¶3.) Plaintiff was alert and responsive and stated that he had hurt his ankle downstairs and had then walked upstairs. (Ibid.) Mulder inspected plaintiff’s ankle and found no obvious fracture or dislocation. (Ibid.) Generally, absent an open fracture or gross deformity, an x-ray is necessary to diagnose a broken ankle. (Romero Dec., ¶4.) Plaintiff asked if his ankle was broken and Mulder told him that he could not tell and that an x-ray would need to be taken to determine that. (Mulder Dec., ¶4.) Mulder advised plaintiff that he could either have the AMR ambulance take him to the hospital or have one of his friends drive him. (Ibid.) Plaintiff declined to be transported to the hospital by AMR. (Ibid.)

There is nothing in the records to indicate that paramedic Mulder should have known that plaintiff had a broken ankle. (Faithfull Dec., ¶4.) Plaintiff’s ankle did not appear to be fractured or dislocated when examined by Mulder and there was no apparent medical emergency requiring Mulder to transport plaintiff to a hospital. (Faithfull Dec., ¶¶ 3, 4.) Absent compelling medical circumstances, which were absent in plaintiff’s case, a paramedic cannot force a patient to be transported to a hospital if the patient does not want to go by ambulance. (Faithfull Dec., ¶5.) Rather, it is appropriate, and within the standard of care, for the paramedic to release the patient at the scene after completing a patient assessment and determining that the patient’s medical condition does not appear to require immediate medical assistance. (Faithfull Dec., ¶6.)

Providers of emergency medical services, including paramedics, “[s]hall only be liable in civil damages for acts or omissions performed in a grossly negligent manner or acts or omissions not performed in good faith.” Health & Saf. Code §1799.106, subd. (a). “Gross negligence” is defined as either a “want of even scant care” or “an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.” City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 747, 754. Here, there is no evidence that AMR or Envision Healthcare acted negligently, let alone in a grossly negligent manner, or that they did not act in good faith, in assessing plaintiff’s condition and then advising him that he could either go by ambulance or private driver to the hospital. Plaintiff did not appear to be in distress or require immediate medical care when Mulder was talking to him about his ankle injury. (Mulder Dec., ¶4.)

AMR and Envision Healthcare next assert that there are no facts to support plaintiff’s contention that defendants’ actions caused further injury to his ankle. An essential element in a negligence or profession negligence cause of action, in addition to the failure to exercise due care, is causation. Recovery will be denied in a negligence claim unless it is shown by competent evidence that the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff’s injury. Brookhouser v. State of California (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1665, 1677 (“It is axiomatic that a defendant cannot be held liable in tort for an injury he or she did not cause.”). In this case, plaintiff has presented no evidence of a causal connection between his injury and defendants’ conduct. Indeed, Anthony C. Romero, M.D., a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, states that, because plaintiff did not seek medical treatment for his ankle until three months after the incident, there is no way to determine to a reasonable degree of medical probability whether any action or inaction by defendants furthered plaintiff’s original injury. (Romero Dec., ¶8.)

“Whenever the plaintiff claims negligence in the medical context, the plaintiff must present evidence from an expert that the defendant breached his or her duty to the plaintiff and that the breach caused the injury to the plaintiff.” Powell v. Kleinman (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 112, 123. Plaintiff has failed to do this and therefore the Court will grant AMR and Envision Healthcare’s motion for summary judgment. Judgment is ordered entered in favor of defendants AMR and Envision Healthcare and against plaintiff, together with costs.

2. Defendants’ Discovery-Related Motions

In addition to their summary judgment motion, AMR and Envision Healthcare have filed motions (1) to compel plaintiff to attend his deposition, (2) to compel Ann Vance, MFT, one of plaintiff’s treating therapists, to comply with a deposition subpoena for production of business records, and (3) for order that defendants’ requests for admissions propounded to plaintiff be deemed admitted.

The Court finds that all three motions are moot in light of the above ruling on defendants’ summary judgment motion.